Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Partially Opens Proprietary XML Format
eschasi writes "Groklaw has an article up
reporting that Microsoft
is going to open up their XML representation of the DOC format in response to Massachusetts' demand for
open formats. According to Groklaw there are some interesting caveats involved in the move. From the license: 'We are acknowledging that end users who merely open and read government documents that are saved as Office XML files within software programs will not violate the license'. While opening up the format even partially is a good idea, it's still a far cry from folks being able to write programs that create DOC-compatible files."
Mind you, this is - as I understand it at Groklaw - merely an opening to make GPL-applications able to read (not write!) government made (nothing else) documents, without interfering with MS patents. 'Open' might not be the best word for this...
Proprietary XML? Leave it to Microsoft to completely miss the whole damn point.
Sugapablo
Where I am confused is... isn't Corel word and OpenOffice capable of opening even the latest version of M$ Office doc anyways?
The right to own data was lost with closed format, since it did require a license to read something you might have produced yourself. For a private person, it might be sad. For a corporate needy of its archives of past correspondance, it can be catastrofal. That microsoft opens up their format for reading, and specifies parts of it, makes it possible to write software to convert this data to a open format, or index it and such. Therefor, we can still save in MS format, but have much-less tie in.
I'm only wondering how far it goes, if it goes as far as to say that I'm allowed to make a non-MS certified opensourced bot that crawls my disk, and indexes office XML files... And what if a corporate does so, will they be allowed?
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
"We are acknowledging that end users who merely open and read government documents that are saved as Office XML files within software programs will not violate the license."
It seems that the ability for a citizen to read and access government documents should surpass all other interests, regardless of licensing issues. In other words, even if a government employee was boneheaded enough to save a document in a proprietary format, my ability access to the information in that document should be guaranteed no matter what, licenses be damned.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Ah, and once again Microsoft do what they do best: create a solution to a demand which doesn't actually solve the problem but your average politician can point at and say "they've cooperated". Bit like their server licencing and the judgement against them in the EU, it's providing a solution which is useless yet looks good on paper.
Dude, we're not complaining, we're suprised. This is the first time they've done this in my memory, and personally I don't see it as a bad thing at all. Be nice if they caught it before it got posted, but something is better than nothing.
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
The MS Game "Allegiance" was actually 100% open-sourced by MS a while ago, just for your info too. I know it's not a document format, but MS (especially the developers section) does open-source stuff on occasion.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Call me an idiot, but I seriously cannot see the problem here. How can Microsoft issue a licence that forbids me to build DOC-writing support in my application? OOo has done this for years, without any problems.
Patent law does not work, IMHO, because XML has been around for ages.
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
Click parent on my post, I was refering to the fact /.'s editors deleted a dupe. Interesting tidbit to know though.
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
the more it seems that governments are starting to acknowledge that open formats are a good thing. And as governents are starting to pay attention to that, so we're getting a response from a closed-source corporation.
Look at what's happening in Europe - Microsoft is trying to retain its essential closed nature by offering outrageous license fees etc in return for its code. But the EU isn't accepting that. It's demanding full compliance with its rulings if Microsoft wants to be able to sell to the European market.
And here we have the MA locals asking for open formats and, to some extent at least, getting it.
Microsoft correctly identified in The Halloween Document that the problem is the Open Source/Free Software movement, not really the software that's coming out of it. If it can kill the movement and the method, then proprietary software is what is left. It's starting to look like the movement is making significant progress.
One last point in this ramble, the goal of the movement has never been to "kill microsoft", just to make it play fair with everyone else. We don't need their code, just a few pieces of information to make things interoperable. It looks like the political scene is starting to see this as desirable. May competition go forth and the best product for a specific job be declared the best!
How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
If they open up the format just enough so we can read it , it will be a nice enough start so we can officaly open the documents then save them as a fully open format. ,
As much as i would love them to be made to play fair and open the format fully
Opening it enough to make it easy to parse gives us all we need incase of the disapearence of word , or MS trying to force an upgrade by breaking compatability in some way.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
I'm a little confused on the whole .DOC being a closed format issue. If OpenOffice can write documents in the proprietary .DOC format, why can't other programs? Am I missing the picture completely? Thanks for any explanation!
Shouldn't an XML format be easy to reverse engineer? Exactly how are they obfuscating their? Anyone have a link to an example file?
Equally this still presents a roblem for QUANGOS. Non government organisations that perform the delegated work of governments will not be able to produce doccuments without restriction on which programs can read them. This could present huge confusion for end users who can't be expected to know where that blurry line between organisations lies.
My point is: Since this seems like it could really hurt them, I'm wondering if anyone knows of other software companies that have done this - and what happened to them? Is there even anything as ubiquitous as Word that we can compare to?
This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
Ironic
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
Does anybody really want to keep this format going? Let Microsoft do whatever the hell they want and focus on moving people to open source one person at a time.
Laws are for people with no friends.
No, governments have no place telling businesses how to operate. We need to get government out of our cozy relationships with corporations, and go it alone, human to artificial human.
Without governments, corporations don't exist. They are legal entities. So I guess I agree with you.
I'm honestly confused. Could someone explain what the point of having an Office XML document would be? If its not using the XML standard and needs to be opened doesn't that make it something other than XML? Thanks. p.s. Corel Wordperfect can open and create Word Docs, and even has a Word mode where the UI is layed out like Word.
lol, you know what is funnier?? I cant even post a comment to the story...
anyway,
Actually I think mailing out new CDs is far more likely to work than persuading users to keep their own systems (especially Windows boxes) up to date.
(You could in principle install a Linux system on each user's own hard disk and push out updates to it, but giving them a new CD has far less to go wrong.)
I rather miss the days when performing an operating system upgrade was as simple as opening the computer and putting in some new ROM chips; putting in a new CD and rebooting is getting back towards that level of friendliness.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
using proper English grammer and spelling.
You mean proper 'grammar'?
using proper English grammer and spelling.
Do as you say, not as you do?
God forbid the formats be opened up and Office should actually have to compete on technical and financial merit rather than vendor lockin!
RTF summary
Simple. He simply uses Windows Calculator, and translates from binary 10001100001111110101011000010111101011111010010 to hex. Simple when you think about it.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Toilets. I believe toilets are as ubiquitous as Microsoft Word.
Laws are for people with no friends.
using proper English grammer and spelling.
How about, you handle the grammar and I handle the, Spelling. "OK"
-mkb
Really. Why does this matter? They released their format in 1997. It hasn't changed much. This isn't news. This isn't goodwill on Microsoft's part- at all. Just a nice way to get good press because everyone already knows the format anyway.
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
What, the party invented the aeroplane?
Can someone explain (I'm not trolling here) how the heck did M$ manage to shove a patent in on a public format that's been around for ages?
Or, is it some other issue than patents this time? I mean, XML-based formats are easily hackable, so M$ doesn't really need to spec it for you to write a converter, even though for a state government it would be logical to ask for a spec.
...but I'm a little confused. Suppose I get a copy of a document in a format with a closed license. In what way am I bound to that license? When did I agree to it? Why would I ever need permission to from the creator of the format to read it? Is there some mysterious EULA that I accepted by being born? Or does this license only apply to people who create the documents with a microsoft application who have presumably agreed to some byzantine concept of ownership?
Hmmm... I never realized this wasn't legal. I made a vb program that assembled word-compatible XML files some time ago, complete with image embedding and independently margined sections. Its fairly easy (and I'm a really poor programmer) just by studying the syntax in a saved document. I suppose that while XML is open, the strange stylesheet formatting and symbols for section breaks and whatnot are considered proprietary, since they have no use outside of winword rendering of the XML file.
Partially Opens Proprietary XML Format
1) Partially is not open
2) Proprietary XML? Huh?
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Why does Microsoft have to open up their file format anyway? It's theirs. They built it (yes, based on an open standard but that's like saying anything coded in C must be made open because the C standard is).
That's like saying I built a really cool house, everyone likes the house, everyone wishes they could have a house as cool as mine. Because everyone likes it I should be obligated to let everyone in, let everyone use it when they like. I should have to (in addition of having the building plans on file publicly) give room layouts with furniture, decorations and everything. Did I ever expand the functionality of my house by finishing the basement? Gotta let everyone have that too! I have a monopoly on my house (it being mine and all) and that's not fair to all my neighbors who have houses that aren't quite as cool.
To hell with Microsoft and their proprietary standards, software dripping with overfeaturitis that most people will never use, let alone understand, and -- oh yes -- the big price tag. Not to mention the Big Barn Door for macro virii and the like.
For $$$$$, you can have all that and more with Microsoft products. Or for free you can have products that can just get the damn work done already.
Microsoft reminds me of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation from Hitchhicker's Guide -- the whole lot of them will be up against the wall when the Linux Revolution comes!!!!
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
...but I still don't know if I can make a program that'll edit one and not violate Microsoft's license. Really, my brain still hurts after reading their patent license and the surrounding news.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Yes, most GPL text editors and office suites can write summaries in RTF. Any other questions?
I agree with your assessment of toilet seats being cheaper than Microsoft seat licenses but shouldn't we wait until Microsoft releases a study on the total cost of ownership between toilets and Microsoft Office?
Laws are for people with no friends.
3 words:
God bless Mozilla
Wouldn't it just be SO easy to ditch DOC and start using HTML? All you'd need to do is have major corporations remove other options from the menu, so HTML would be the only option. Welcome to the new format. It's really easy. It's 100% compatable with even the most basic text editors. Although, Office does seem to produce butchered HTML (but only with images). Until they resolve this issue, I can dream.
Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
This is a read-only license that applies only to government created documents.
Reverse-engineering for compatibility purposes is still legal under the DMCA. Reverse-engineering is OK as long as you don't do it to infringe upon copyright.
Source, The text of the DMCA, Chapter 12, Section 1201.f (find within page for "reverse engineering")
The previous sig has been removed due to
That if the MS license leaves so many people with so many questions, then it is *NOT* open, and certainly not clear enough to warrant anyone applauding MS.
History shows that MS is willing to swap old problems for new problems, creating an endless loop of user licensing fees.
The revolution is coming, and MS is offering to let us eat cake?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
If Microsoft allows only reading of the XML DOC format, then we can legally transform it into the Open Office format. I don't see how they can actually enforce any rule that disallows it. Somebody could then write a plugin for MS Word that opens Open Office docs -- unless MS is already providing such functionality in the newer versions of Office -- It's not a perfect solution, but it will allow interopability to a degree. Maybe the plugin could transform the document in memory back into MS Word format for the program to read in ... or can we not transform the document just in memory either? (i.e Does is counting as actually writing the XML DOC format?). I didn't read article.
Ever hear of .txt files?
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Damn, I thought that after converting it to a string it would say something clever.
"Invalid length for a Base-64 char array" is all I got.
Also, any software that implements this is violating the spirit of the GPL. The license explicitly restricts use of the patents to reading and writing MS documents. Noone may take such an application and modify it to make their own XML document format.
- krafty
Here is my question, the MS patent on this XML format has not been fully accept right? The patent office is awaiting public comment. Has anyone gone to make a comment?
Also, I don't even see how you can patent using open standard. I mean, XML was designed as method of storing data,amoung other things. How could the patent office possibly accept a patent where XML is simply being used to do what it was designed to do?
I mean, to draw a parallel. The 110w outlet in the US is an industry standard right? I mean, everyone can make plugs and outlets royalty free and all the appliances and devices can plug into them for power. MS patenting XML to store a word processing file is like Sony patenting a TV that uses the 110w outlet, thereby blocking anyone else from doing it even though they didn't invent the outlet or the TV. The same holds true here. MS didn't invent XML, they didn't invent the word processor, nor did they invent storing a word processing file in XML. So, how in the hell can they apply for a patent on it? Just by paying money?
...is 100% closed.
if i'm a grammar nazi, you're an illiteracy nazi.
To the end-user the file format doesn't matter a hill of beans. It's about their work being represented safely in a file (doesn't matter the file type). I cannot see how Microsoft can prevent reading of the DOC XML format for the purposes of translating the user's data into a different format (e.g. into Open Office). It's up to the users where and when they want to edit their data, not Microsoft. If MS tries to restrict reading of the XML DOC format they are ultimately not going to win that one short of bribery because the concept is skewed.
Microsoft cannot walk that line and try to be both open and closed. It's just not going to work. And if they cross the line too far, they will lose control of their format; they know this and are being very careful, only letting a bit out at a time. I don't blame them. At the same time there's no way they're going to be able to have a complicated set of rules legislated around the DOC XML format. They have to open it or close it, period. It will become black and white if/when the issue is taken to court.
Its more like they are opening a window - and not the door.
f MSFT can't close the document format and any program can correctly read/write documents in the way they were intended what advantage does MSFT have. That's why MSFT doesn't want this and everyone else does.
What makes you think publishing the format would hurt Microsoft, you do know that the Word and Excel formats used to be published on their website? I have no idea why they stopped but it is hardly likely to affect their word processor dominance one way or the other. FWIW, my guesses:
(1) Didn't feel like spending the time maintaining it, combined with a very low level of interest.
(2) Wanted a consistent policy, publish all formats or none, consistency may make lawyers happy.
(3) Wanted to make an issue out of nothing, something that can be given away or conceded during a negotiation. Woot woot, a victory for Open Source, we got Microsoft to do something that they had previously done for years --- something that didn't impeded their dominance --- something that didn't help the competition --- something that nobody really cares about. Woot - woot.
I work for the municipal healthcare dep. at Rio de Janeiro City. Here at Brasil the federal gov. has stabilished a deadline to change most software to opensource or free equivalents by 2007.
;-)
So, we started by enforcing the use of OpenOffice in every desktop. The process is simple, if someone want that old 450MHz Duron replaced by a new 2GHz Athlon they must use OpenOffice instead of MSOffice. Its amazing how this argument work!
Mind you that we don't forbid the installation of MSOffice on this new machines. No sir, anyone can BUY and DONATE the licente to the city, so the software can be installed legaly on the computer. Heh, imagine how often it happens!
The next step was to replace Lotus Notes (argh!) with PostFix + Cyrus running on Debian, and installing ThunderBird on every desktop. Most users just loved the change, because the Lotus Notes Client realy suck.
To add an nice touch, every DOC file that pass trough the email system is converted into a PDF, for tha sake of virus-prevention... The only way to pass an editable document thought is to use OpenOffice native format!
One day, I dream of substitute all W2k desktops with Ubuntu Hoary... and tell its just a new version of WindowsXP. With most of the users already using OpenOffice, ThunderBird and Firefox I gess none of the users will notice the change!
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
OK, I have the failing of mis-spelling "grammar". However, the gist of my post was "Run your message through a spell-check before sending"
On the happy day that either Slashdot or Mozilla provide spell checking on text boxes, I shall most definitely enable it!
I never claimed to be perfect!
www.eFax.com are spammers
Independent survey, I hope you mean? Otherwise it is no worse than the paper...
This at least gives us the right to our own data back, since we can then convert it to a more useable format. So it seems like we've won the first battle, but not the war!
= /library/en-us/dnrtfspec/html/rtfspec.asp. You have won nothing, you do know that Microsoft used to publish word and excel formats on their website? It did not impeded MS's dominance, it did not help the competition.
You never lost the right to your data, you could always output your data into something else. Text, RTF if you wanted to preserve formatting. RTF's specification and a sample reader are published by Microsoft, http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
What on earth makes you think you need Microsoft's permission to do that?
Grammer's in de kitchen kleaning up the milk I spelled with the cookies she givved me . . .
hawk
If you cared, and few really do, you could always have written an RTF file with word. RTF is documented and sample readers are available from Microsoft, http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dnrtfspec/html/rtfspec.asp. Word and excel format used to be published, it hardly mattered with respect to Microsoft achieving dominance or helping the competition.
D'oh. That's what I get for not reading at -1 :D
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Note that these terms don't actually allow one to CREATE software to read this format, just USE it. Nor does it permit using this software you used (but couldn't create) to modify MA govt docs or read or write any other docs in the format. Also, obtaining the format docs themselves requires a click-through license, which may well change for the worse as soon as MA is committed to the format...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? The Mr. Whipple Foundation to Prevent Squeezing?
OT: Zonk, you're a duping motherfucker!
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
What is XML? XML is an open standard developed from UML. It is a markup language much like HTML meant to replace EDI and other technologies that allow data to easily be shared between applications and environments.
Being an open stadard, it cannot be copyrighted. However, tools built with XML can. Copyrighting just the XML in a tool has yet to be shown as an enforceable copyright but that doesn't stop them from attempting to say it is enforceable.
You can write anything on paper but it still doesn't make it true.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
This is a case of government telling business how the government will operate though.
Massachusetts is saying "we want open file formats, deliver or we won't use your product." And Massachusetts being a goverment entitity has a little weight to throw around.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
This at least gives us the right to our own data back, since we can then convert it to a more useable format...
That microsoft opens up their format for reading, and specifies parts of it, makes it possible to write software to convert this data to a open format, or index it and such. Therefor, we can still save in MS format, but have much-less tie in.
You seem to be under the impression that ".DOC" documents use something other than eight bit ASCII characters to store data. Try this: Open up WINWORD.EXE, type in "abcdefg", save the file as "abcdefg.DOC", then open up "abcdefg.DOC" with NOTEPAD.EXE.
Guess what? NOTEPAD.EXE will show you that your data, the string "abcdefg" is there in the file just as it ought to be.
There is no loss of data when using WINWORD.EXE; rather, there is a gain of typesetting [or markup, or "formatting"] structure that other typesetting [or markup, or "formatting"] programs might not be able to understand.
Microsoft owns the rights to their own proprietary typesetting [or markup, or "formatting"] algorithms, but they make absolutely no claims whatsoever on the underlying data that those algorithms act upon.
If you don't like Microsoft's typesetting algorithms, then use Corel's [WordPerfect], or IBM's [Lotus Word Pro], or Apple's [iWork], or hell, even Donald Knuth's.
And after you've tried those other proprietary algorithms, ask yourself whether Microsoft's proprietary typesetting algorithms failed to offer you any value for your money.
Besides, even if none of what I've said is true, you can still always take your ".DOC" documents, open them in WINWORD.EXE, and click on "File | Save As... | Save as type | Text Only (*.txt)" and never have to deal with Microsoft for the remainder of the life of your data.
It's also to force people to migrate from text files and commandlines to full blown GUIs by turning simple stuff like:
to(That's me trying to format it nicely, btw.)Jean Paoli, Senior Director XML Architecture for Microsoft has stated:
"We are acknowledging that end users who merely open and read government documents that are saved as Office XML files within software programs will not violate the license."
I and arguably my employer, a U.S. company doing business in Massachusetts, would almost certainly wish to write documents for the commonwealth in the .DOC format Massachusetts prefers. The Microsoft permission to merely read documents authored by the government of the Commonwealth seems less than responsive to an effort to allow non-monopoly software to be used by persons
wishing to communicate with Massachusetts.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
This isn't about govt telling a business how to operate. This is about a client (which just happens to be a state govt) specifying certain features (in this case, interoperability) that they require in the products they purchase.
This is the free market at work.
Or a bartender only partially pouring my cold frosty one.
Or a dealer only partially dealing me my hand.
You savvy?
Offic outputs real xml with no base64 encoded or cdata blocks
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Could someone point me to a reference about the laws regarding proprietary standards in the first place? Can't I write my own program to manipulate files in any format, whether or not the file format was created by someone else? Then is it illegal to create a program where Ctrl+C means copy, since ____ (Apple?) invented that?
Patenting something is good, to protect inovation, if microsoft has created a invention which allows amazingly wierd complex data structures to be stored in a higherical structure easilly then they can patent that, but that wouln't be a patent on the XML file which stored the resulting structure.
This patent seems to be on the arragement of data, if that arangement was chosen so a specific process can work on the data then patent that process with the data arangement, if not then this patent is for one thing and one thing only, anti-competitive behaviour, and as such shouln't be granted.
"XML is an open standard developed from UML"???
;)
Err...I think you have your "ML"'s mixed up buddy. You mean "SGML", right?
Or did they just use a lot of class diagrams when developing XML?
It's like saying "Wife partially opens legs"
Not very useful, and not very interesting.
.
They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
a third party program that opens up a word document template and then creates a word document from it. Would that violate MS dealio?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
But its the government that ends up enforcing the copyright/patents/whatever else goes into protecting a proprietary format. So you're saying that a government should back up a corporations right to restrict access to someone else data, but not back up a citizens rights to access the data that is theirs?
Or have you only comfort...that stealthy thing that enters the house and guest then becomes host, then master - KG
You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
XML is a W3C recommendation (not an open standard; W3C makes that distinction for a reason). It is based on SGML (not UML). XML is a meta-markup language like SGML; it is a means of specifying markup languages such as HTML or WML (not a markup language like HTML). Being a W3C recommendation, XML is copyrighted... by the W3C (not it cannot be copyrighted). Patenting and licensing of XML schemas or DTDs (which is what Microsoft did) is not the same thing as copyrighting anything (tools, formats used by tools, whatever) As for You can write anything on paper but it still doesn't make it true? I couldn't agree more. In fact that statement is as true of Slashdot comments as it is of paper. Jeez, I hate Microsoft as much as any Slashdotter, but at least get your facts straight!
It's a penny for your thoughts, but you put in your two cents worth. Somebody, somewhere is making a penny. SteveWright
I read that as "we don't want the State of Massachusetts to come down on us like a ton of bricks on the heels of our successful slippery escape the last time, so we choose to be magnanimous and concede the point that people have a right to read government documents (since that won't really hurt us in any substantial way)".
Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/default.mspx
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
You wanna supply the formatted and unformatted versions, so that I can compare the two?
PS: Slashdot does allow you to use this little typesetting [or markup, or "formatting"] algorithm popularized by Tim Berners-Lee.
PPS: Believe it or not, WINWORD.EXE allows you to click on "File | Save As... | Save as type | Web Page (*.htm; *.html)" so as to save your data's formatting within the confines of that very same algorithm.
It's hard to say, but I'd read this to say that I can write GPL'd software, but anybody who wants to create a derivative work. would have to go the Microsoft web site and agree to the license.
This is probably splitting hairs, but unless the format is released into the public domain or into an open licensed format, there is nothing that says Microsoft couldn't change their mind later and stop granting licneses. My license may be perpetual, but anyone who doesn't make it in the gate may be out of luck.
Furthermore, this might allow Microsft to halt distribution of GPL'd implementations of their formats to people using the program for non-government purposes. Note this clarification:
So, you can distribute your OpenOffice filter to people, but presumably only under the condition that they use it to read government documents.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"This at least gives us the right to our own data back, since we can then convert it to a more useable format."
Not correct. "We" will have no right to read or write data in their format. Only "Government documents" may be read. That doesn't give most of us shit.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Yes - this "government" doing "work" is just the socialist debris of the misguided 20th Century. Communism is dead! We need to get rid of the government, so we can finally put corporations in their natural position atop the food chain. Then we can get to work on restoring feudalism...
--
make install -not war
specifically of GPLed software. They are putting loads of effort to get around that but GPL software is creeping up everywhere and they don't know how to stop it.
In the beginning this will be viewed as a problem for those using open formats. The receiver will require you to use a format that Word can handle. But as the number of open format users grows, the balance will shift, and this will increasingly be seen as a problem with Word. Ultimately, Microsoft may be forced to make use of open formats to prevent more users from shifting away. At that point, we've won.
Microsoft can now say, "Office XML file format is available for anyone to read. This proves Microsoft is promoting open standards."
Decision makers who don't care about the nuances of open standards or this issue, will put a check mark next to Open Standards in their features matrix.
Meanwhile, MS develops MSXML solutions to extend their reach into lucrative corporate markets now populated by small companies.
Don't mod me down (again) for the following, because this is the harsh reality.
Alternative office suites may be able to read and write M$ XML all they want some day. Microsoft simply doesn't care because they aren't a real threat to their bottom line. *No* Office application competitor redefines the broad market or adds new overwhelming feature/value to the broad Office applications market. Period. You can imagine what MS would do if such a thing existed.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
.txt is a really poor format for international applications...
-Amalcon
When you are a monopoly, you are held to a different standard. It is my opinion that you can't enjoy monopoly status and have everything closed and proprietary- especially if it pertains to information that belongs to the public. To make your analogy even come close to what's happening with Microsoft, the house needs to be on a piece of land that contains an important public resource, and you have the only entrance. You effectively have control over when, how, how often, and for what reason I can access that public resource.
This is precisely why I think Microsoft should be forced by law (it won't happen any other way), to provide a document convertor, free of charge, that will take ANY Ms document, and create a human-readable, standard XML document, or at least a text document that retains both the data AND its context.
We are not talking about your house here, smarty pants.
We are talking about the public square only being accessible by those that wear MicrosoftShoes and have a Microsoft-membership card.
Public government documents must be accessible by the public "ad infinitum" in publicly-documented formats that will not perish if the company that created them dies, vanishes or any other eventuality.
Additionally, the government should not buttress a monopoly by forcing all of its citizens to purchase from that monopoly if they want to communicate with their own government.
You can do whatever the hell you please with your own documents.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
My apologies... SGML not UML. Got my ML's mixed up. Thanks to everyone for the correction
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
That's an oxymoron...
Toilets are used to remove crap.
"So, did they modify it? Here is the answer I got from Linda Hamel, Esq., General Counsel, Information Technology Division:
"Yes. It added a provision to the license stating that users could use ANY software (that would include GPL licensed open source desktop software) to read government records created using the MS XML reference schema."
Sounds like maybe you need to RTFA.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I would tell microsoft to go patent/license THIS (insert obscene gesture)
all they are doing is trying to patent a fricken standard and rob their customers and create lockin!
when will the insanity end!
You can convert your doc files online here: http://www.oooconv.de/engine/OOOconv.php
Oh well, what the hell...
Interesting use of non-multiple-of-4 bitlength unit... 0xFFFFFFFF implied 32 bits, but I would think most programmers know the dangers of assuming things like that :) (revision added)
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
AC, you may be 'funny', but actually XML is the only way out of the registry (binary) database on Windows (since the deprecation of .ini files).
10 years from now you will do 'notepad' instead of 'regedit' on all config.. and Windows may become a platform to deploy to with simple 'copy', just like all others.
e.g: RegFreeCOM is only one of the good news.
gtkaml.org
I think the courts should under no circumstances let this pass. This is a bunch of BS, and I think that unless Microsoft complies fully and delivers the complete format of the data files, they should be fined not $5,000,000 per day until they comply but $5,000,000 per day until at least 100 independant open source computer programs exist that can handle Microsoft document files in their entirety, with no major user complaints about the functionality of these programs.
I think it's simpler: "two B or not two B"
gtkaml.org
The registry is in a closed, binary format because Microsoft wanted it that way. If you think it is impossible to have a human readable registry, have a look at wine's implementation. You can edit it with any text editor.
BTW, have you looked how gconf stores its configuration data? It is in XML, but it is far from human readable.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Even if they open the spec "partially" don't they still yield a significant amount of power over the rest of .. .. oh wait, I just realized why they did this.
Typical.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Is there any kind of get-the-facts project to spread the truth against or about Microsoft's (etc) FUD and propaganda? That might help counter^H^H^H^H^H^H^Heducate those careless "decision makers."
I'm not advocating counter-propaganda, of course, but if there were a way for average users* to learn, simply**, about the ins and outs of FOSS, and how companies misrepresent it, the movement might just get somewhere a little faster.
* To paraphrase, think of your "average" user. Then think that half of your users are worse/dumber/less able than that.
** Read: No Stallman, no ERS.
I can see how dictators do it, it's so easy. - Easy2RememberNick
Leave it to Microsoft to take a perfectly functional pre-existing free standard, screw it up, and then be ablt to charge for it.
Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
You are like asking, since we all have to die anyway, why do doctors work to save our lives? Where is the point where doctors should just "let go"?
Nobody will agree on a sure answer. And the same person may even give different answers based on his/her mood of the day, what the pastor said the day before, or even the movie that he/she last watched.
As for me? I say doctors should fight till the end --- just for the idealism. As such we should also fight to the end to realize these ideals, being mature enough to know that they may but be futile or meaningless.
And this I call "the human condition".
That exactly was my point too.
With app.config files put in program's folder (equiv alent to HKLM configuration data) and app.config files put in Applications Data folder under each user's home (equivalent to HKCU configuration data) things can only get better and we might get rid of the registry database
gtkaml.org
I got "do" which could be short for 'doh'.... ??
0 010";
// printf("%d\n", value);
#include
#include
int
power(int i);
int
main()
{
char* data="1000110000111111010101100001011110101111101
long value=0;
int i;
for (i=0;istrlen(data);i++)
{
if ('1' == data[i])
{
value = value + power(2);
}
}
printf("%x\n", value);
}
int
power(int tothe)
{
int i;
int val=2;
for (i=0; itothe; ++i)
{
val = val*2;
}
return val;
}
Believe with me, my saplings.